I'm glad you did, and I thank you. You must be a mind reader. You somehow
sensed why I got lost trying to follow Jens reasoning. Right off the bat
I'm confronted with "admissible prime constellations" and right there I'm
lost.

Your neat little introductory on this greatly helped me understand what
Jens meant. I'm going to study this concept in more detail. Regards with
appreciation.

Bill Sindelar

Jens Kruse Andersen

... No problem. You can search more information about admissible constellations with a search engine. If a prime p

Message 2 of 12
, Sep 29, 2007

0 Attachment

Bill Sindelar wrote:

> Jens, I think I may have offended you by writing "I'm lost here. Seems
> like a convoluted approach."

No problem. You can search more information about admissible constellations
with a search engine.

If a prime p <= k does not divide the common difference in an AP-k then
p will divide at least one of the terms in the AP. In order to be
admissible, a PAP-k must therefore have a common difference which is
a multiple of k# (k primorial).
I guess a PAP-k with small difference (and therefore relatively few primes
between the terms) will have a better chance of being a (PAP-k, n),
because the number of primes can vary between fewer values.
A PAP-11 has minimal difference 11# = 2310, so 10 intervals of 2309
numbers must have the same prime count to produce a (PAP-11, n)
with minimal difference. That appears computationally too hard for me.

PAP-7 to PAP-10 all have minimal difference 10# = 7# = 210.
I used my old tuplet finder to systematically search a lot of PAP-10 with
difference 210 and count whether there happened to be an equal number
of primes between the terms. There were other things to use my only
computer for so the search stopped when only (PAP-8, n) had been found.
Hans Rosenthal is more patient and has found many (PAP-9, 0), also called
CPAP-9, with a version of the same program. (PAP-9, n>3) looks easier.
In 2004 he found the smallest known CPAP-8 = (PAP-8, 0) with
another version. I just tested the other PAP-8 from the search and found
a (PAP-8, 1) with difference 210:
64881326075217862991473794035228920286672784697 +
0,36,210,264,420,564,630,784,840,942,1050,1086,1260,1360,1470

--
Jens Kruse Andersen

w_sindelar@juno.com

... I m relieved. I was trying to get up some nerve to ask you what sort of ... I just tested the other PAP-8 from the search and ... equivalent to the above

Message 3 of 12
, Oct 2, 2007

0 Attachment

Jens K. Anderson wrote:

> No problem. You can...
>>

I'm relieved. I was trying to get up some nerve to ask you what sort of
approach you used on (PAP-8, 5) when your mail arrived with the answer:

> I used my old tuplet finder to systematically search a lot of PAP-10
> with
> difference 210 and count whether there happened to be an equal
> number
> of primes between the terms. There were other things to use my only
> computer for so the search stopped when only (PAP-8, n) had been
> found.

>>The approach I used required making the following assumption, which is

equivalent to the above statement; Let S(p, n) represent an infinite
subset of the universal set of all consecutive odd primes, where p is the
first prime of the subset, and n (including 0) represents the number of
consecutive primes from the universal set that have been omitted between
adjacent primes of the subset.Then any S(p, n) contains a set of any
number k of primes in arithmetic progression. The program I wrote is
based on this.>

I used Pari-gp for this. For every set of k consecutive primes, which has
n skipped consecutive primes between its adjacent terms, after an
inputted integer, it checks if the terms of that set are in arithmetic
progression. Jens, is this slower than your approach with your tuplet
finder? If one could prove the above assumption, would that also prove
that all admissible prime constellations have infinitely many occurrences
as you put it, or only those that have a (PAP-k, n) subset?

Sindelar wrote (Yahoo #19093):

>>Obviously, the ordinal numbers of the primes in such a PAP are also in

arithmetic progression (AP) with a constant difference of (n+1).>

This suggested trying this assumption which is just a fancy way of
defining a (PAP-k, n): In any infinite arithmetic progression of positive
integers with a common difference d, there exists a subset of k
consecutive integers, so that if each integer in that subset is
considered to represent the ordinal number of a prime, the associated
primes will be in arithmetic progression of length k with (d-1)
consecutive primes between adjacent terms of that arithmetic progression.
(Ordinal number of a prime means its position in the numerically ordered
set of all primes, with prime 2 being number 1). It works but is more
computationally complicated. What do you think?

Bill Sindelar

Bill Sindelar

Jens Kruse Andersen

... I would expect your method to be much slower based on how randomly consecutive prime gaps appear to be distributed. ... No, and also no to the only-part.

Message 4 of 12
, Oct 2, 2007

0 Attachment

Bill Sindelar wrote:

> I used Pari-gp for this. For every set of k consecutive primes, which has
> n skipped consecutive primes between its adjacent terms, after an
> inputted integer, it checks if the terms of that set are in arithmetic
> progression. Jens, is this slower than your approach with your tuplet
> finder?

I would expect your method to be much slower based on how
"randomly" consecutive prime gaps appear to be distributed.

> If one could prove the above assumption, would that also prove
> that all admissible prime constellations have infinitely many occurrences
> as you put it, or only those that have a (PAP-k, n) subset?

No, and also no to the only-part. Your assumption says nothing
about the existence of specific differences between primes,
so it says nothing about any admissible constellation.

> This suggested trying this assumption which is just a fancy way of
> defining a (PAP-k, n):

.....

> It works but is more
> computationally complicated. What do you think?

"computationally complicated" refers to something computational,
for example the time to compute something with a given algorithm.
You have made another formulation of your conjecture but not
described an algorithm so "computationally complicated" is a
concept which does not apply.

I don't have time to discuss more.

--
Jens Kruse Andersen

Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.